Support NeoGAF

[Trey]

That the meme frames "not being in shape as something that needs to be excused" is your interpretation. I see it as a response to the prevalence of excuses that are trotted out by people when explaining why they won't take the steps of engaging in diet or exercise in the first place. Obviously if you're not making excuses to begin with it doesn't apply, but many people do so. Whether it is an effective challenger of those excuses or whether it turns people away is up for debate; judging by this thread I'd lean towards the latter.

As for Opiate's examples, they were silly. The basic point that people have different contexts influencing their achievements is valid, but the specifics were not comparable. If you think the barriers to entry and amount of time, effort and even natural predisposition required to obtain a degree from a prestigious university are comparable to those required to engage in a basic physical training program you're either ill-informed or being dishonest. But Opiate's examples fail at an even earlier hurdle: he is comparing outcomes to processes. These memes (by and large) don't contain pictures of Olympic medallists or models or bodybuilders and then ask people why they haven't reached a similar level of achievement, they show people with a large disadvantage making an effort. The (purported) 102 year old on the rowing machine isn't going to win Mr. Olympia, but he is applauded for not letting excuses dissuade him. The woman in the OP isn't saying "I've had kids too so why don't you look as good as me?", she's saying "Despite having children I make time to exercise." Her appearance is simply a visual heuristic for confirming this. It may be an attention grabbing and obnoxious one, but that's all it is.

If you take a look at the fitness thread on this very forum (and many others like it), you'll find that most people don't care if you're fat or weak or skinny or slow, they care if you have a positive attitude and are willing to learn. When people say things like "I don't have 20 hours a week to spend lifting weights" it demonstrates that they are unwilling to put even the slightest effort into researching the topic and thus are "making excuses". It certainly doesn't help that vast swathes of the fitness industry peddle FUD aimed at confusing customers, distorting their body images and hampering their efforts to improve their health in order to prime them for continued consumption, but lashing out any time you're told that you've been sold a lie is a good way to ensure that you'll keep making excuses and that any effort you do make will likely be in vain.

No, she explicitly is saying that: "You're not in shape: what's your excuse now that I've proven one of those excuses can be overcome." Perhaps a person is a single mother with three kids. Is that good enough excuse? The entire enterprise is reductionist of a very complex issue, and as such loses its messaging because it only honestly applies to people very similar in life to her.

The word excuse is saying that being in shape is the optimal lifestyle choice, and you must find reasons for not being in shape. And while I would agree that being in shape is conducive to a healthier life, not everyone agrees it is a better life, and society itself does not make such a thing necessary.

So when you compare this thinking to subjects that objectively improve the quality of life as set by society (school, finance), it further broadens the scope of how condescending the attitude is.

Everyone has things they're good or bad at, and it is not empathetic to assume that people should rise to your standard in whatever niche you excel within. Be it academia or physical capabilities or anything else.

The argument should fall on whether "tough love" is an effective form of motivation when applied to a population. It can certainly work on an individual basis, but I'm of the opinion that society in general deserves the scrutiny and retooling - not the overweight+ demographic.

I don't see the word "fault" in that definition though...you said it was literally in the definition.

Mistake, bad behavior...all "faults". Explicitly.

 

[CrankyJay]

2ex·cuse noun \ik-ˈskyüs\
: a reason that you give to explain a mistake, bad behavior, etc.

I don't see the word "fault" in that definition though...you said it was literally in the definition.

 

[Seanspeed]

No.

Well I'm going to assume that you're just being argumentative there and don't really believe that deep-down. Cuz that's crazy man.

 

[Dude Abides]

There's no accusation there. There is a question. It's all in how the reader chooses to interpret it. Throw out all the big words you like, it doesn't change that all she's done here is pose a question to the audience and allow each individual to process that how they choose.

What's your level of education? Not an accusation, just a question.

 

[RM8]

People's feelings about their relationship with the French language should not be compared to people's feelings about their bodies.

Not all ads are targeted to the same people, that's my point.

I'm young, I don't have any disease, I can afford joining a gym, I can definitely fix my terrible sleep pattern and add a daily hour of exercise to my day. Basically, I have it much easier than this woman, yet I'm underweight while she's fit. Very fit. I'd like being that fit. I feel like this ad targets me quite specifically, and I'm not outraged.

 

[spock]

I personally don't see a problem with what she posted. I can see how it would bother some, but I don't think she should apologize or justify a thing.

At least she made an impact and broke threw some walls. Yes some may have taken offense but it wasn't a "hard" vulgar diss or anything. She pushed buttons...within context. She sparked conversation as well. All a good thing in my view.

On the business side of things, its great for her. If she would have said it in the PC way and got no attention no one would care and no one would be talking. Sure she is eliminating some but she's also drawing those more aligned with her and people who should could potentially serve and help closer.

Many times you want to create a divide like this. She is enhancing her brand and what's unique about it. She's clearer not the right fit for some, but perfect for others. Good on her.

For those who where offended I personally feel its more a internal issue with them, then anything malicious on her part.

 

[SeanR1221]

Confirming my understanding from multiple sources:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/positive+reinforcement
http://psychology.about.com/b/2011/...rcement-psychology-definition-of-the-week.htm

I think you're focusing on a very basic definition of reinforcement. For example your post doesn't take into account something like delayed reinforcement.

Let's break down crankys behavior. With the antecedent, behavior and consequence.

He's back in the fitness thread. That's the behavior.

We can speculate what this will lead to, or the consequence of this behavior. So what was the antecedent. What got cranky in there? What increases his likelihood of going back into the fitness?

Her message was presented. It increased his behavior. To him it's a positive reinforcement.

 

[CrankyJay]

Mistake, bad behavior...all "faults". Explicitly.

That's all implicit though...

Even if it were accusatory, I'm sure:

1. It wasn't meant that way
2. People are taking her words too seriously...she isn't speaking directly to any one individual, so their reactions to these words are just negative reflections of how these people might feel about themselves. That's for them to work on, not Maria Kang.

 

[PogiJones]

2ex·cuse noun \ik-ˈskyüs\
: a reason that you give to explain a mistake, bad behavior, etc.

So what's the issue there? We can't call it a mistake to neglect care for your body?

 

[Septy]

She's a big meanie seems to be the excuse du jour. Tomorrow, another shall be found.

 

[Jest Chillin]

There's no accusation there. There is a question. It's all in how the reader chooses to interpret it. Throw out all the big words you like, it doesn't change that all she's done here is pose a question to the audience and allow each individual to process that how they choose.

It's a photo that's asking a question. By it's very nature that makes the question rhetorical. What meaning is there to gather from the rhetorical question of "What's your excuse?"

Yes, I'm stuck on the fact that its a fitness picture because its a huge part of putting the 'context' into frame.

And I've gone over that it takes somebody being cynical or ignorant to be 'confused' by the intent of this. For somebody who knows something about fitness, the intent is quite clear.

You misunderstand. If you want to understand the point of view of those that are upset, you have to look at it from their point of view and set your own opinions aside. You can't do that because you know, through reading the OP, the many facets of the situation. That combined with your personal views, influences the context in which you view the photo. But if you think of it from the perspective of an average person who doesn't go to the gym just scrolling through a Facebook feed and seeing that picture with that phrase.. what would you think? Those are the people that are offended.

I'm really racking my brain to think of another way somebody could be offended by it that doesn't involve one of those two things and I cant think of one. Honest to god.

You either think she's just parading herself up on Facebook for no other reason than to show off - cynical

You think she's trying to make other people feel bad about themselves - cynical and/or ignorant

On the other hand, the very obvious(if you're being reasonable) intent:

To genuinely be motivational. The three kids there and all. "You can do it too."

Or you're offended that she's portraying her looks as being accomplishable by anyone and if you haven't accomplished it, you're making excuses.

And "You can do it too" would've been a much better message if she had simply written those words instead.

 

[Johnny Cage In The Shower]

Well I'm going to assume that you're just being argumentative there and don't really believe that deep-down. Cuz that's crazy man.

My apologies, I did edit my "No" post with a clear explanation since you quoted me.

No I do not want to be argumentative at all, on the contrary, I am just giving my views on the discussion, but I do need to note that I am at work now, it's currently 26 past 9 am, and I should get off GAF.

I've pretty much said all I had to say anyway, thanks for the discussion, enjoy the rest of your day.

 

[Zoe]

So what's the issue there? We can't call it a mistake to neglect care for your body?

You can. But it's a negative approach which has been shown to be less effective for most people.

http://www.cfah.org/hbns/2013/negative-public-health-campaigns-may-undermine-weight-loss-goals

 

[Wazzy]

But it IS also helpful for many others. As evidenced in this thread, many enjoy the message. I've been on the edge of starting to work out again, and this has helped push me closer to doing it. Others have expressed support. So, all we have are ambiguous data that it's not effective for some people, and it is effective for other people.

So the controversy is that a lady who worked hard to become fit put some words on a Facebook picture that some people thought would be better replaced by other words, because those specific people think other words would be more positive and helpful for them personally? That's the controversy?

Negative reinforcement like hers has been around for years and yet obesity rates have been getting worse. I would really like to know how this negative reinforcement is helping just because a few people decided to change from it when as I said before, obesity rates are worse than ever.

As for you changing due to negative reinforcement, I changed from positive reinforcement. Using our own life examples as proof isn't going to do much for the argument.

 

[SeanR1221]

She's not using negative reinforcement.

 

[CrankyJay]

Negative reinforcement like hers has been around for years and yet obesity rates have been getting worse. I would really like to know how this negative reinforcement is helping just because a few people decided to change from it when as I said before, obesity rates are worse than ever.

As for you changing due to negative reinforcement, I changed from positive reinforcement. Using our own life examples as proof isn't going to do much for the argument.

Negative reinforcement is just one strand of many regarding increasing obesity rates...

 

[SeanR1221]

Negative reinforcement is the taking away of something to increase behavior.

Like...using burn cream alleviates pain. You took the pain away. Next time you have a burn you'll use the cream again.

 

[Deleted member 12837]

So what's the issue there? We can't call it a mistake to neglect care for your body?

Apparently not according to some people ITT...

You're supposed to study your faults/mistakes/bad decisions and learn from them, not pretend they don't exist.

"What's your excuse?" serves a reminder and call-to-action to reflect on that. It could be about anything, not just weight. If you decide that you do have a legitimate excuse, or you accept/are at peace with it, then fine move along. I don't see what's offensive about that. You don't have to pay her message any mind if that's the conclusion you've reached. She's not personally insulting you.

It is not. You are factually wrong. I provided literal definitions of the words used by the woman in the OP (i.e. "Excuse") and then the word in the debate (i.e. "accuse')

This is not open for debate. You are factually wrong. Words have specific meanings and you cannot just insist that words can mean whatever you want because the actual definitions are very inconvenient for your argument.

Yes because everyone uses the literal definitions for words whenever they read or write anything. Meanings are static and never change due to context, time, culture, etc.

 

[spock]

Negative reinforcement like hers has been around for years and yet obesity rates have been getting worse. I would really like to know how this negative reinforcement is helping just because a few people decided to change from it when as I said before, obesity rates are worse than ever.

As for you changing due to negative reinforcement, I changed from positive reinforcement. Using our own life examples as proof isn't going to do much for the argument.

The perspective that the picture and words are negative a totally subjective. I do not see it as negative. Reminds me more of stuff football coaches say to push players or to make them think.

HOWEVER I do understand how some could see it negatively, but that does not mean that the words and phrase in themselves are negative. In this particular as I said it seems way more subjective. To me negative would be using words like lazy, fat, etc all in a sentence in a way where the intent is very clear.

 

[blame space]

Negative reinforcement is the taking away of something to increase behavior.

Like...self-esteem.

 

[FallingEdge]

Like...self-esteem.

depends on the person

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

The reaction to this image is proof positive that some people will always be offended by something. The woman has lots of built in "excuses" in her life and yet she still found time to workout, be healthy and get in shape. Her example will motivate some and she serves as a positive example for others. Yet lots of people are getting hung up on the word "excuse," of which we tend to make many so that we can avoid having to work hard to be fit ourselves.

 

[spock]

Also regarding negative reinforcement. There is also the use of push/pull strategies in behavior and habit change which could be seen as negative. However research shows that for some people push/pull methods work. Push/pull refers more to thinking about the pain or consequence of not changing. Its not a put down per se.

 

[Jest Chillin]

I think you're focusing on a very basic definition of reinforcement. For example your post doesn't take into account something like delayed reinforcement.

Let's break down crankys behavior. With the antecedent, behavior and consequence.

He's back in the fitness thread. That's the behavior.

We can speculate what this will lead to, or the consequence of this behavior. So what was the antecedent. What got cranky in there? What increases his likelihood of going back into the fitness?

Her message was presented. It increased his behavior. To him it's a positive reinforcement.

Immediate consequence is usually superior and is the much stronger influence on behavior. As such the negative reinforcement (and it is negative reinforcement even if the intended goal is positive) is the stronger factor even if there is a possibility of positive results down the line.

I really don't see how you can posit otherwise.

Negative reinforcement is the taking away of something to increase behavior.

Like...using burn cream alleviates pain. You took the pain away. Next time you have a burn you'll use the cream again.

Negative reinforcement is taking away something unpleasant, unenjoyable. In the case of the picture the negative is the rhetorical question "What's your excuse?" The intended behavior is for you to start working out so you'll no longer have the negative of giving excuses. You won't be asked what your excuse is any longer.

Another example would be yelling. Nobody likes being yelled at. So you yell to make things unpleasant for them so they'll be enticed to do what you want in an effort to not be yelled at.

 

[Trey]

That's all implicit though...

Even if it were accusatory, I'm sure:

1. It wasn't meant that way
2. People are taking her words too seriously...she isn't speaking directly to any one individual, so their reactions to these words are just negative reflections of how these people might feel about themselves. That's for them to work on, not Maria Kang.

Mistakes and bad behavior are very clearly and without confusion faults. Mistakes and bad behavior are explicitly faults.

I don't think she meant to be malicious. I applaud the steps she took to get where she's at in life and hope that she continues to be a motivating force for people to themselves take steps to a healthier life. I'm merely critical of her messaging here, as she is being critical of mothers.

People can take words however they wish. The person who says something does not get to dictate the response people have. She isn't speaking directly to anyone, she's speaking broadly to mothers. And there are plenty of circumstances up to and including not wanting that type of lifestyle which would keep a woman with children from wanting to work out, and some will take exception to being condescended upon.

I may not personally be offended by what she said, but it doesn't hit close to home for me. And while I think some of the responses were vindictive, there were others who correctly pointed out that the image was aggressive and insufficient. Building self esteem is definitely a good look, but it doesn't generally come from people throwing inadequacies back into the faces of those who lack that essential self esteem.

 

[Wazzy]

The perspective that the picture and words are negative a totally subjective. I do not see it as negative. Reminds me more of stuff football coaches say to push players or to make them think.

HOWEVER I do understand how some could see it negatively, but that does not mean that the words and phrase in themselves are negative. In this particular as I said it seems way more subjective. To me negative would be using words like lazy, fat, etc all in a sentence in a way where the intent is very clear.

Her saying "what's your excuse?" IS negative. She is accusing. Just because the outcome may be postive does not mean what she is saying is.

 

[SeanR1221]

Immediate consequence is usually superior and is the much stronger influence on behavior. As such the negative reinforcement (and it is negative reinforcement even if the intended goal is positive) is the stronger factor even if there is a possibility of positive results down the line.

I really don't see how you can posit otherwise.

Once again, just because you see something as a negative does not make it a negative reinforcement. It's not what that word means.

And yes immediate consequences are better. Unfortunately there are few immediate things in he fitness world. Probably the biggest reason people have trouble sticking with it.

 

[RM8]

Her saying "what's your excuse?" IS negative. She is accusing. Just because the outcome may be postive does not mean what she is saying is.

She's accusing me and she's right about it. I'm her target market, maybe? Why should ads have pointless disclaimers of super obvious stuff like "this may not true for the entire human population"?

 

[Moxx19]

Good on her, loved her FB post too, screw the vitriolic detractors who get "offended" by what is obviously a motivational statement.. Has worked for a killer body and has every right to flaunt it. I'm unhealthy and I have no excuse for not doing anything to change that. Whether that is a bad thing is up to the individual and what they are happy with.

 

[CrankyJay]

Would anyone be boycotting Nike right now if they said this?

 

[Septy]

Their excuses like their appetites are boundless.

 

[Jest Chillin]

Once again, just because you see something as a negative does not make it a negative reinforcement. It's not what that word means.

And yes immediate consequences are better. Unfortunately there are few immediate things in he fitness world. Probably the biggest reason people have trouble sticking with it.

Reposting because you likely didn't see my edit which address this:

Negative reinforcement is taking away something unpleasant, unenjoyable. In the case of the picture the negative is the rhetorical question "What's your excuse?" The intended behavior is for you to start working out so you'll no longer have the negative of giving excuses. You won't be asked what your excuse is any longer.

Another example would be yelling. Nobody likes being yelled at. So you yell to make things unpleasant for them so they'll be enticed to do what you want in an effort to not be yelled at.

 

[andycapps]

I think on an objective basis, we can all agree that neglecting ones health and being overweight is unhealthy and unwise. So the question if someone is overweight is only, why? I think that's a good question for everyone to ask themselves. What are my excuses? Are the things I'm obligated to and the time commitments I have something I can work around, or can I eliminate some optional things to better focus on my health?

 

[The Albatross]

Good. I think she's got a right to defend herself... If you don't like her body or her message, don't follow her on facebook.

What's my excuse for being 20lbs heavier than I should be? Fucking laziness.

 

[Wazzy]

She's accusing me and she's right about it.

So we're at least in agreement that she's using negative reinforcement, correct?

I'm her target market, maybe? Why should ads have pointless disclaimers of super obvious stuff like "this may not true for the entire human population"?

There's no targeted market with her message. It's aimed at people who are overweight.

As for the ads, no I don't think they should have disclaimers like that. What I do think is that they should find ways to encourage change with positive reinforcement rather than negative approaches like hers.

 

[RM8]

There's no targeted market with her message. It's aimed at people who are overweight

I'm underweight and If found it motivating. Also, it totally has a target market, it's an ad posted on her business page.

 

[SeanR1221]

Also, eating unhealthy doesn't have to be terrible. Here's my cart at costco today.

Carrots, broccoli, brown rice, quino, eggs, green beans, Greek yogurt, apples, chicken, salmon, soup and oatmeal.

And wings. Hey it's football season.

 

[FallingEdge]

There's no targeted market with her message. It's aimed at people who are overweight.

I'd argue that there is a wide range of people she is targeting.

overweight, underweight, people who are "stalling", those currently not motivated, giving that extra "push" to get things started, etc.

 

[SeanR1221]

Reposting because you likely didn't see my edit which address this:

Right which brings me back to my original point. The message can be interpreted by people in different ways

 

[PogiJones]

You can. But it's a negative approach which has been shown to be less effective for most people.

http://www.cfah.org/hbns/2013/negative-public-health-campaigns-may-undermine-weight-loss-goals

I went and looked at the study/studies (she has multiple studies about the same topic, so I'm not sure which that article you linked used). Yes, fewer of the people surveyed thought the negative ones (particularly the ones that included the term "obesity" or made some reference to weight) were motivating than the positive ones. I have issues with some of the methodologies, but I won't get into that. (Real quick: "Intent to comply" was the measurement, and that will be skewed by the ease of complying with that particular instruction. For example, "Move everyday" and "Eat a variety of colorful fruits and vegetables every day" had the most people respond they intended to comply. That will necessarily make the campaigns promoting easier activities seem like they are more effective, which may not be the case for overall health.)

So looking at the numbers, it ranges from roughly 40% effective ("Childhood obesity is child abuse,") to 80% effective ("Move everyday"). Most of them--even slightly negative ones like "The more you gain, the more you have to lose," are between 60% and 75% effective. "Unhealthy eating and drinking and not enough physical activity can seriously affect your health," is somewhat negatively oriented, and it received 78%.


In other words, this lady on her Facebook picture did not choose the absolute pinnacle of effective messages. She probably fell a few percentage points. Why is this an issue? Do individuals have to research the absolute most effective ways to motivate people before posting on their Facebook page?


EDIT: And furthermore, who's to say those percentages are all the same people? Perhaps some that do not react well to positive messages do react well to negative messages. Should those who only react well to negative messages never get appealed to? Do only the positively motivated people deserve our attention for the obesity problem?

 

[Deleted member 12837]

Her saying "what's your excuse?" IS negative. She is accusing. Just because the outcome may be postive does not mean what she is saying is.

But some (like me) don't see it as an accusation or as negative in tone.

As I mentioned in my last post, the rhetorical question is a challenge to actually think about your current health. It's good to reflect on bad behavior/faults/mistakes and she's simply encouraging you to do so. There's no judgement in that pic.

I think on an objective basis, we can all agree that neglecting ones health and being overweight is unhealthy and unwise. So the question if someone is overweight is only, why? I think that's a good question for everyone to ask themselves. What are my excuses? Are the things I'm obligated to and the time commitments I have something I can work around, or can I eliminate some optional things to better focus on my health?

Exactly.

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

There's no targeted market with her message. It's aimed at people who are overweight.

That's the problem. People who are overweight are feeling like this unfairly is targeted at them when in reality it is targeted at a much wider range of people. I can see this easily aimed at people who want to get in shape, want to get in the condition the woman is, or have been putting off starting an exercise program. None of which are necessarily overweight.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

Anyone saying there's no excuse for not fixing your body should be having the same feelings about fixing your capacity for empathy and understanding.

 

[Shambles]

Like...self-esteem.

One can not take your self-esteem. You can only give it away yourself.

 

[Wazzy]

I'd argue that there is a wide range of people she is targeting.

overweight, underweight, people who are "stalling", those currently not motivated, giving that extra "push" to get things started, etc.

Come on. Her message is clearly directed at people who are overweight. I'm not saying it can't be used to motivate other problems people have but for her case in paticular she is targeting people with weight issues. Now, I'll agree saying there's no targeted market is wrong on my part since she is targeting something, which is people who are overweight.

I'm underweight and If found it motivating. Also, it totally has a target market, it's an ad posted on her business page.

I'll rephrase since I was wrong to say there's no targeted market. She is targeting people who are overweight.

One thing, why does it matter that you found it motivating? I'm just curious since it doesn't really bring anything to the discussion. I didn't find her message motivating but then again I'm in decent shape. My family however also didn't find it motivating nor did some of my friends who have weight problems.

 

[Seanspeed]

You misunderstand. If you want to understand the point of view of those that are upset, you have to look at it from their point of view and set your own opinions aside. You can't do that because you know, through reading the OP, the many facets of the situation. That combined with your personal views, influences the context in which you view the photo. But if you think of it from the perspective of an average person who doesn't go to the gym just scrolling through a Facebook feed and seeing that picture with that phrase.. what would you think? Those are the people that are offended.

I'm not misunderstanding anything. The 'average' people you're talking about would be an example of 'ignorance'. If you took a minute to think about it, the intent would definitely be obvious. Some people wont do that, some people will ignore it anyways, and some people will pick on up what the point actually is(to be motivational). As for me, as soon as I saw it, I thought "That's what this is about?" without having read through the thread at all.

Or you're offended that she's portraying her looks as being accomplishable by anyone and if you haven't accomplished it, you're making excuses.

And "You can do it too" would've been a much better message if she had simply written those words instead.

The intent is the same. The whole point of it IS "You can do it too". I mean, really, if you can understand that(which isn't hard), then there's no excuse for being offended. Who cares if it wasn't worded exactly how you would have liked? Some people like to find different ways of saying things. Its not a big deal.

And she's right. That sort of body is accomplishable by most anyone. It takes a lot of hard work to get that level of tone, granted, but its do-able. Its one of those 'dream things' in life that is actually achievable. Very, very, very few people have legitimate reasons they cant lose weight. Again, there's no reason to be offended over that. You have to face that hurdle in order to get on the wagon.

My apologies, I did edit my "No" post with a clear explanation since you quoted me.

No I do not want to be argumentative at all, on the contrary, I am just giving my views on the discussion, but I do need to note that I am at work now, it's currently 26 past 9 am, and I should get off GAF.

I've pretty much said all I had to say anyway, thanks for the discussion, enjoy the rest of your day.

Just saying man, the whole 'pictures are worth a 1000 words' thing doesn't apply in a huge amount of cases. I could literally pull up thousands of pictures that don't even remotely give a good idea of what a person looks like, much less what they're actually like as a person. I think if you know this, which is why I've gotta believe it was just you being argumentative and not thinking it through.

 

[Petrie]

You can. But it's a negative approach which has been shown to be less effective for most people.

http://www.cfah.org/hbns/2013/negative-public-health-campaigns-may-undermine-weight-loss-goals

So she isn't catering to those people. I find it very motivational. Why must she cater to you?

 

[Jest Chillin]

She does have a target group. Mothers. That's why her kids are there. That's part of the reason why the backlash is so vicious. It's also explained in her various FAQs.

Right which brings me back to my original point. The message can be interpreted by people in different ways

Not really no. The negative aspect is inherent. It can only be viewed as positive after the fact if the individual judges it worth going through the negative to get the results. Even in that light, it still negative reinforcement to achieve a desired behavior. That desired behavior is then what results in a positive feeling. So you're really stretching to call it positive reinforcement.

 

[RM8]

She's fit, I'm not, I'd like being fit. Why am I not being targeted? The ad doesn't specify "for being fat". That's super arbitrary. We skinny guys are often the target of fitness messages.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

So she isn't catering to those people. I find it very motivational. Why must she cater to you?

She doesn't.

Seriously, people can say and do what they want. Just don't be weird when others do it right back to you.

There's so much "you must accept this can exist" in this thread from people who don't seem to understand it works both ways.